Talk:Bud
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The second picture, the one with the cone-shaped bud, needs a caption.
- Indeed. Four years and STILL nobody knows what it is! Soap Talk/Contributions 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't see the photo, but I imagine its mighty funny considering SNL has ben around
for awhile.
What are buds protected by?
editTell me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.104.141.170 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
speaking of protecting the page, someone has written obscene language on it...
Types of buds
editThis section has to be rewrited and the illustration removed.
Introduction is botanically perfect but not this section which contains many mistakes.
1. Bud scars
editBuds themselves usually don't make any scars because they don't fall but transform themselves into stems or wait a more or less long time as dormant buds. Only when accidentally removed do they leave a traumatic scar.
Usual morphological scars are either leaf scars (as on the illustration) and they may sometimes be used for species identification or 'bud scale' scars (note: only scars made by the fallen scales) and as making a ring around the stem, they may be used for growth counting (very difficult to use them for identification).
--Channer (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Caption
editThere should be a caption for the second image, the large cone-like thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiekier (talk • contribs) 02:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Extraneous comment about marijuana
editI removed the comment "Common termanology (sic) for the smokable part of the cannabis sativa plant marijuana." That use of the word "bud" is accounted for on the disambiguation page. It doesn't belong here any more than does Larry "Bud" Melman--also on the disambiguation page. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
In my region, "bud" is used exclusively to talk about marijuana flowers (buds). I see no reason why it should not be noted in this article. It is very relevant. -Anonymous 3/1/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.67.246 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)